Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> * Øystein Grøvlen <Oystein.Grovlen@stripped> [09/05/22 21:05]:
>> So far my Value object knows nothing about arithmetics, all they know
>> about is how to convert between types. However, it needs to distinguish
>> between more than just four types. For example, conversion between
>> integer and string will be different for a Field_timestamp than for a
>> Field_long.
>
> This just doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying that
> conversion between an integer and a string will be different
> depending whether this integer represents a datetime or, well, an
> integer.
>
> Isn't it easier to say (and code) that a conversion from an
> integer to a string is not the same as conversion from a datetime to
> a string? What am I missing?
That's really what I tried to say. Both integer and datetime will
internally be represented by a longlong, but the conversion from
longlong to string will be different.
>
> Perhaps we need to talk on IRC to better understand the language.
>
>> AFAIU, this is not within the scope of the task I have been given and
>> how it is reflected in the worklog description. However, the worklog
>> has not yet been approved so it remains to see if I have misunderstood.
>
> What is the scope of the task?
From the worklog HLS: The main value of this task is to centralize the
data conversion between types.
>
>> The way I have understood it from discussions in the re-engineering
>> team, I am not going to transfer ownership of data from Item to Value.
>> So far, Value objects are just used for return values that can easily
>> converted to other types.
>
> A Value object that doesn't hold any value... perhaps should be
> called something else.
The Value object holds a value, but Value objects are returned by value.
Hence, I do think we can talk about ownership here.
--
Øystein

Content reproduced on this site is the property of the respective copyright holders. It is not reviewed in advance by Oracle and does not necessarily represent the opinion of Oracle or any other party.